sonar_chat

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions live web grounding and filter capabilities, which are useful, but it does not elaborate on response format, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the call is synchronous. Some behavior is disclosed, but significant gaps remain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately useful capabilities. No wasted words or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having a rich schema with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return structure or how it differs from the async sibling tools. This leaves an agent without critical information for correct invocation and result interpretation, making it inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including detailed explanations like the '-' prefix for domain exclusions. The description only restates that domain, recency, and location filters are supported, adding no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs chat completions with live web grounding using Perplexity Sonar models and specifies the endpoint. This distinct verb+resource combination differentiates it from sibling tools like web_search and the async sonar variants.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for grounded chat conversations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web_search or the async sonar submission tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.